Wikipedia

Talk:King James Version

Former featured article King James Version is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 4, 2005.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 3, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted
November 29, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted
July 31, 2006 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

Fixed conflicting WP bible & christianity [ edit ]

Greetings, WP bible had importance=top and WP christianity had importance=high. This conflict was causing errors for daily WP 1.0 bot assessment processing. The solution is to remove workgroup bible from "WP christianity".

Going forward, whenever this type of conflict is discovered in other articles, please update to remove the conflict. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

When I read that in the diff I saw "The solution is to remove the bible from christianity"! :-o Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
CE above to clarify removing "workgroup bible" not "the bible" :-) JoeHebda (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Criticism section [ edit ]

There should be a section in criticism of the KJV. As a basic there is nothing here about the translation of Revelation which was done from the commentaries because the Latin vulgate for Revelation was not available. This article is not very academically sound given even this most basic critique of the KJV cannot even be found here! 120.29.44.195 (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

here’s a reference! “In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to ‘back-translate’ the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been” (https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today by Professor Daniel Wallace) 120.29.44.195 (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I fear you are confusing one version with another here, 120.29.44.195. Erasmus's problems in sourcing a Greek text for Revelation relates to his Greek edition of 1516, which became known as the Textus Receptus; and is discussed in that article. You will be welcome to contribute observations there, sourced to published notable scholarship. This subject of this article is the 1611 English KJV translation. This did indeed take a later edition of the Textus Receptus as its Greek text (as too did almost all New Testament versions of the Reformation era, translated from the Greek). but I am not aware that any of the KJV readings in the final six verses of Revelation still maintain Erasmus's botched reverse translations from the Vulgate; a counter-example has sometimes been asserted at 22:19 - 'book of life' for 'tree of life' - but has notable pre-Vulgate patristic support. TomHennell (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

1629 1st Revision Cambridge King James Version introduces the Letter J [ edit ]

The original King Iames Version did not use the letter J. J first appeared in the 1629 Cambridge King James Authorized Bible which is considered the 1st Revision[1]. Hence, the 26-letter modern English Alphabet was established. 73.85.201.21 (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a secondary source for that claim? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Stating that the 1611 version contains no letter J and that the 1629 version does does not need secondary sourcing (so long as there is no further discussion or analysis beyond the straightforward facts). If differences between editions are already a topic within the article, primary sources for facts that are as obvious as this are perfectly fine, imo. (Unless you mean for the "hence the 26 letter alphabet was established" claim; which I think is dubious regardless, source or not XD) Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
The claim that "Hence, the 26-letter ..." is unsupported and looks like supposition, not even OR. I've removed it. The bland statement of fact can easily be checked and should stand. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
On further thought, should this whole section be removed? Under §2.4 "Printing" the typography is discussed, including the absence of "J" (except as a flourish in roman numerals). Thoughts? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ 1629 King James Authorized Bible (1st Revision Cambridge)
What is this?